On Tue, Jun 09, 2015 at 05:29:52PM +0800, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 09, 2015 at 11:13:40AM +0800, Huang Rui wrote:
> > +static void delay_mwaitx(unsigned long __loops)
> > +{
> > +   u32 end, now, delay, addr;
> > +
> > +   delay = __loops;
> > +   rdtsc_barrier();
> > +   rdtscl(end);
> > +   end += delay;
> > +
> > +   while (1) {
> > +           __monitorx(&addr, 0, 0);
> > +           mwaitx(delay, true);
> > +
> > +           rdtsc_barrier();
> > +           rdtscl(now);
> > +           if (end <= now)
> > +                   break;
> > +           delay = end - now;
> > +   }
> 
> How about you think instead and do something like:
> 
>       rdtsc(start);
>       rdtsc_barrier();
> 
>       for (;;) {
>               delay = min(MWAIT_MAX_LOOPS, loops);
> 
>               __monitorx(&addr, 0, 0);
>               mwaitx(delay, true);
> 
>               rdtsc_barrier();
>               rdtsc(end);
>               rdtsc_barrier();
> 
>               loops -= end - start;
>               if (loops <= 0)
>                       break;
> 
>               start = end;
>       }
> 

It looks better, thanks. :) 

> > +}
> > +
> > +/*
> >   * Since we calibrate only once at boot, this
> >   * function should be set once at boot and not changed
> >   */
> > @@ -118,7 +145,12 @@ int read_current_timer(unsigned long *timer_val)
> >  
> >  void __delay(unsigned long loops)
> >  {
> > -   delay_fn(loops);
> > +   if (loops > MWAITX_MAX_LOOPS ||
> > +                   !static_cpu_has_safe(X86_FEATURE_MWAITT) ||
> > +                   boot_option_delay != DELAY_MWAITX)
> > +           delay_fn(loops);
> > +   else
> > +           delay_mwaitx(loops);
> >  }
> 
> Then you can do away with that fallback entirely.

OK, I will submit V3 to remove kernel parameter and with the change of
delay method.

Thanks,
Rui
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Reply via email to